Could you give me a quote from Dawkins which supports the above? To be honest, I don't think that he stated that atheists are incapable of irrational or violent behaviour.
Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?
- Thread starter francois
- Start date
re. Stalin and Mao.
Both supressed religion.
Both left their own personal stamp in a way that was an exact copy of Religious Iconography. Mao even left us his 'Little Red Book' and most every home possessed one or more, much the same as people possess the Bible or the Quaran.
Now to suggest the Religion is the root of all evil whilst neatly side stepping both Stalin and Mao (and arguably Hitler) is sheer sophistry and sleight of hand by Dawkins.
Even when Stalin was dead a friend visiting Russia was astonished at the hold that Stalin still had over the people. There were queues of people (mainly Russians and poor Russians from outside Moscow) who had come merely to see him resting in the Mortuary.
At certain intervals a Red Guard (this was early 1980) would open the mortuary door ajar so as to let Stalins Spirit/Ghost to enter or leave. Now if that isn't religion by another guise I do not know what is.
Now it may be that in the future we'll have some Atheistic country where everything is peace and light...its unlikely though.
Both supressed religion.
Both left their own personal stamp in a way that was an exact copy of Religious Iconography. Mao even left us his 'Little Red Book' and most every home possessed one or more, much the same as people possess the Bible or the Quaran.
Now to suggest the Religion is the root of all evil whilst neatly side stepping both Stalin and Mao (and arguably Hitler) is sheer sophistry and sleight of hand by Dawkins.
Even when Stalin was dead a friend visiting Russia was astonished at the hold that Stalin still had over the people. There were queues of people (mainly Russians and poor Russians from outside Moscow) who had come merely to see him resting in the Mortuary.
At certain intervals a Red Guard (this was early 1980) would open the mortuary door ajar so as to let Stalins Spirit/Ghost to enter or leave. Now if that isn't religion by another guise I do not know what is.
Now it may be that in the future we'll have some Atheistic country where everything is peace and light...its unlikely though.
So do fundamentalist atheists want to be God?
That would explain this:
The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science: a clear thinking oasis.
All hail the mighty chief.
He will show us the light
edit: hmm the website has a better picture
Last edited:
Its more a question of people without a belief system swapping it for another and the megalomaniac leader..not Dawkins..erm..Mao/Stalin..placing himself in the position where he is seen as 'more' than human. It suits the leaders egocentricity and also acts as a replacement deity.
I think the same would happen in any totally secular country where religion is taken away from the populace. At least thats the experience so far and the result was more deaths than in any religious war (which isnt to condone religion)..its like politics..there are dangerous extremist on both sides but that doesnt mean one tosses all interest in politics aside. We're not to blame for extremists/fundamentlsts or the similarly zealous...in reality and ideally..the religious should preach the opposite..primarily moderation and humility.
Sadly people who possess such ideals are few and far between. There no real need even to be religious..Wiliam Blake wasnt particularly religious..as he said theres more humanity in the warm tavern than there is in the cold church aisles.
I think the same would happen in any totally secular country where religion is taken away from the populace. At least thats the experience so far and the result was more deaths than in any religious war (which isnt to condone religion)..its like politics..there are dangerous extremist on both sides but that doesnt mean one tosses all interest in politics aside. We're not to blame for extremists/fundamentlsts or the similarly zealous...in reality and ideally..the religious should preach the opposite..primarily moderation and humility.
Sadly people who possess such ideals are few and far between. There no real need even to be religious..Wiliam Blake wasnt particularly religious..as he said theres more humanity in the warm tavern than there is in the cold church aisles.
Aha..Sartre...pretentious! Moi?
You do share something in common...how did George Orwell (a far superior writer) describe him...ah yes...a pretentious windbag. Spot on!
Sartre pretentious you?
That makes no sense.
Do you have even the slightest fucking clue of what you're on about, or is it some form of Tourettes?
Besides, it's not my opinion, it's Sartre's. I don't share it.
Yeah, actually, since you're not fond of backing them once you are challenged too far or get bored.
Can you show me he said they were, because he has stated it about theists?
I'm sorry. Perhaps, I misunderstood you. You wrote:
Thus, suggesting that Dawkins beliefs that being an atheist makes you incapable of being irrational or violent. What makes you think Dawkins holds that belief?
How to define a fundamentalistic atheist? It's like speculating about the nature of fundamentalistic pianist. Again: atheism is the absence of a believe in a deity. Other than that, there is no book of rules atheists could enforce vigorously.
A: Dawkins is an atheist.
B: All atheists are arrogant.
C: Therefore, Dawkins believes that atheism makes you incapable of being irrational.
Get with the program!
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Pure strawman argument. Go and read a couple Dawkins books and come back when you know what you're talking about. Dawkins is no "leader", just a scientist and intellectual. Leading atheists is like herding cats.
<< If you don't mind my asking, what is your position on God? >>
In how many words?
I believe in tradition, in order, and in moral standards and to me they only gained modern currency because of religion. And as the Bible says..we are Fallen and thus by definition flawed so its no surprise to find that religion is flawed or at least the interpretation of it.
If we were ruled purely by reason alone you'd have to ask answer the question as to why all the great works from Plato to Mozart to Da Vinci were prevalent at a time when we were much more spiritual. Thats not to suggest that we're all thankful for Scientific developments (mainly made by religious men anyway). Darwin was deeply religous, as was Einstein but we are entering a stage in which we are being wrested away from all things spiritual by a false belief in scientism and its a belief that feeds the ego but not the spirit.
People may 'claim' to hold within their grasp 'the Theory of Everything' but when looked at in the cold light of day its merely a materialistic ploy to produce a bestseller by jumping on the band wagon of mere whim and passing fad.
Its mere hubris...as always in science as an explanation for life..the more they find answers the more questions arise. By that I mean scientists who are studying the deeper questions..they re nearly always distracted by the complexity and often end up either mad or suicidal. Or in Dawkins case..extremely angry.
In how many words?
I believe in tradition, in order, and in moral standards and to me they only gained modern currency because of religion. And as the Bible says..we are Fallen and thus by definition flawed so its no surprise to find that religion is flawed or at least the interpretation of it.
If we were ruled purely by reason alone you'd have to ask answer the question as to why all the great works from Plato to Mozart to Da Vinci were prevalent at a time when we were much more spiritual. Thats not to suggest that we're all thankful for Scientific developments (mainly made by religious men anyway). Darwin was deeply religous, as was Einstein but we are entering a stage in which we are being wrested away from all things spiritual by a false belief in scientism and its a belief that feeds the ego but not the spirit.
People may 'claim' to hold within their grasp 'the Theory of Everything' but when looked at in the cold light of day its merely a materialistic ploy to produce a bestseller by jumping on the band wagon of mere whim and passing fad.
Its mere hubris...as always in science as an explanation for life..the more they find answers the more questions arise. By that I mean scientists who are studying the deeper questions..they re nearly always distracted by the complexity and often end up either mad or suicidal. Or in Dawkins case..extremely angry.
Or worse, a rational analysis based on statistics, mathematics and logical conclusion.
Speaking of mad...and "always distracted by the complexity"? Not everyone works with Lego, you know.
Wow. Where do I start? How about the fact that Darwin became an atheist after God killed his daughter? How about that Da Vinci had to sneak around at night and dig up graves to study anatomy so the church wouldn't accuse him of withcraft? How about that Galileo was almost executed for heresy?
How about that there is no "theory of everything"?
How about that having more questions arise as a result of inquiry is an expected and natural thing...and does not lead to insanity or suicide?
How about that there is nothing angry about Richard Dawkins, he's about as mild mannered as a person can get?
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Most people are religious because we're born with an instinctive bias toward belief in the supernatural. (See my earlier explanation of archetypes.) Even today atheists only account for a couple of percent of the American population. Given that religious belief has proven not to be a major handicap to scientific inquiry despite its unscientific nature (neither has love which falls in the same category), the law of averages says that the overwhelming majority of science will be performed by religious people, as will the overwhelming majority of professional dancing or trash collection.
Nonetheless we may find some synchronicity with the myths of astrologers. The last two thousand years or "Great Year" in their model were the Age of Pisces, which according to their mythology was "destined" to be ruled by spirituality. Indeed astologers suggest that future historians will count the rise, spread and dominance of Christianity and Islam as the defining motifs of the era that is drawing to a close.
They say that the Age of Aquarius is going to have a new emphasis on rationality and that the rapid evolution of science on the cusp of the two eras is the harbinger of this. Presumably astrology itself will fall victim to the changing of the eras, but with our rational outlook we can see signs that both Christianity and Islam are engaged in battles to hold back the inexorable spread of rationality, or at least to prevent loosening the stranglehold of institutionalized spirituality. For a couple of decades Christianity at least appeared to be losing the battle. They both appear to be winning now, but their victories may be Pyrrhic. How is a re-evangelized Christian America, with a populace so illiterate in science and math that no one can make change for a dollar without a POS terminal, going to compete against un-Christian China and India? (While religion in and of itself may not be a handicap to a career in science, an education in extreme fundamentalism certainly is.) What is the petro-rich Islamic world going to do once it's dissipated all of its wealth in internecine violence to prove who was the rightful heir to Mohammed, as well as a desperate quixotic attack on "The West," and the entire region becomes synonymous with the Third World?
We are certainly at a Paradigm Shift today in terms of technology and economy, and arguably politics. Old structures are either falling or adapting to the Information Age. That shift may also include religion. Perhaps at the end of the next two thousand years era, no one will think to suggest that its scientific developments were "mainly made by religious men." They may not even know what a "religious man" is.